Robinson’s Eco-Economics and Practical Applications
As you may know I consider myself a bit of an expert on science fiction literature. This may be a conceit, but there it is. Recently I have been working my way through Kim Stanley Robinson’s Mars Trilogy. While I have really enjoyed these books, in some ways it has been a very difficult read for me, because my own personal economic and political philosophies clash drastically with those of Robinson. I’m more of a “Heinlein Libertarian”, while Robinson is a “Green Socialist”, and he refers to libertarians in Green Mars as anarchists who want protection from their slaves. I took a bit of offense, but I have to be honest this book has greatly influenced my thinking; especially when it comes to Robinson’s eco-economics.
I have never really believed in the validity of the labor theory of value. I agree in principle that ownership of labor should be every person’s intrinsic right. However, the idea that the value of a commodity is directly related to the labor used to create them only holds so much water. Sure, everyone should receive fair compensation for their work. But, if it takes me 5 hours to design a website layout, and it takes a brain surgeon 5 hours to remove a tumor from your noggin, which act has more value? I thought so.
But, eco-economics can be applied to a system where labor has different values. As I understand it the precept behind eco-economics is that one should put in an equal amount (or greater amount) into an economic system than one takes out of it so that the system remains anti-entropic. Robinson suggests a “need & gift” economy to institute this system, which has some flaws (such as taxes on personal savings to avoid wealth hording), but at a basic level is very practical. You’ll have to read the Mars Trilogy to learn more about this “need & gift” economy since I definitely do not have the space to write a dissertation here (nor the time). In economic times such as we are currently experiencing in the United States this eco-economics has a lot of appeal. Take the bailouts of 2009; they were a clear example that our Keynesian economic system is so slanted toward benefiting a small portion of our population that is damaging to our social ecology. When we bailed out these financial institutions be basically privatized wealth while socializing risk and loss. The idea that this benefits us all is completely beyond the pale. While there is some truth that allowing these companies to fail would be damaging to many the reality is that what these large corporations pay in is not what they take out by a long shot. When loss is socialized like this it does not benefit the general populous. In fact the nature of loans made to large corporations (whether banks or military contractors or whatever) is inherently counter to the previously mentioned eco-economical precept. When these companies borrow money from the Federal Reserve (Fed) the Fed prints that money for them, they get first use of that money and the interest they pay on it (in the quick turnaround time of such a lone) is below the devaluation of money caused by adding that liquidity to the market in the form of free floating capital. In effect these companies are sucking value right out of the system with out even directly producing a good or service. That sounds counter productive to me.
So what’s the alternative? Well off the top of my head I can think of a couple. One might be a loan fund where people had a minimum buy in of say $100. The fund promises a guaranteed return on that investment of say 12% so long as the needed funds are raised (otherwise money is returned or a lower rate goes into effect). Companies back the loan with reductions in personal debt or bonds depending on the company’s relationship to the individual. People can choose to pay into the fund rather than the government mandating the use of their money, and companies people feel will be more successful will receive larger capital contributions. These companies turn around and use that money just like they would use the bailout money, only now they are adding greater liquidity to the market, and they are paying back in more than or equal to what they take out (depending on inflation). Everyone gets what they need and no one has to give up ownership or equity. Obviously this is not fleshed out but I think it is a good start.





















